ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Blair legislated that benefits tenants of private landlords must be entrusted to handle their own rent money. Landlords could only get paid direct after the tenants had pocketed two months rent money. Hence benefits tenants said Ta and across the land they nicked two months rent. What is the difference between that and stealing cash from the landlord ? Or defrauding benefits. But Blair legislated it was not a crime.

IDS has taken a leaf out of Blair's book. Talk a good fight about dealing with dependency culture then pass the load to what he hopes are the broadest shoulders. The hardworking landlords.

If landlords, affected by this, think of themselves as a business then the fact would be that to continue trading would be unlawful. To delay returning keys to lenders and winding up would be unlawful. The longer the delay the greater the negative equity or reduction of equity will be.

I await with interest as the scheme rolls out and in the Autumn it is followed by Universal Credit when Councils and Housing Assns will join private landlords in being unable to get the rents paid.

LE

Well, that means the feckless scum element will be self evicting themselves by not paying their rents and be no longer eligible for social housing.
I'm sure they can get the necessary cardboard boxes to live in from one of the bigger supermarkets.

Old-Salt

Watching the BBC breakfast news interviewing a Government minister this morning, the presenter seemed to be saying that the Tories were being nasty to the unemployed by this measure and didn't seem to be interested in the government's argument that there were many working families who were taking home far less than the &#163;500 a week that was now coming into force. Of course the left wingers would suggest that the Tories should make up the difference to the working families to those who survive on the pittance that those who are out of work and not deprive those people who are without a job of their benefits but they never say where the money's to come from. So long as it's not from their pocket they don't care.

Strangely enough, some private landlords set their rents at the maximum allowed by housing benefit, even if the property would not rent for that much in the private sector. So the landlords that will most bear the brunt are those with unrealistically high rents renting out to claimants on benefits.

I think you'll now see them reduce their rents to the new limit rather than risk them having a property without tenants.

GCM

Strangely enough, some private landlords set their rents at the maximum allowed by housing benefit, even if the property would not rent for that much in the private sector. So the landlords that will most bear the brunt are those with unrealistically high rents renting out to claimants on benefits.

I think you'll now see them reduce their rents to the new limit rather than risk them having a property without tenants.

Very true; landlords around my way get approx £100 pm more from the Social than from their private tenants. One of the problems is that individual flats are not assessed, there is a price for the postcode and if the rent is in that range it's not challenged. So you get couples who live in one flat but claim as individuals for two flats and get a bung from the landlord. I think it's called rent checking, or similar.

I suggest that most claimants will not receive £26,000/year or anything like it. I further suggest that it's set at that amount because of the absurdly high rents in the South. Though I can see no reason why a benefit claimant should expect to live in prime housing, I'm guessing that even bog standard in some areas is expensive.

If it is set too low, you'll create areas in the south, with full employment, and ghettos of the unemployed elsewhere.

LE

I suggest that most claimants will not receive £26,000/year or anything like it. I further suggest that it's set at that amount because of the absurdly high rents in the South. Though I can see no reason why a benefit claimant should expect to live in prime housing, I'm guessing that even bog standard in some areas is expensive.

If it is set too low, you'll create areas in the south, with full employment, and ghettos of the unemployed elsewhere.